I just wish Ken could change the wording in the rules and add a new kind of group feature to the cast list (as Skip previously has said he would. And yes I know Skip has been wrong before). As I see it, the intention of the divider isn't to group cast members together, but only for dividing separate cast lists (episodes/more than one film on a dvd). If the intention is to use it to group cast members together, it's very poorly designed, and I think more of Ken's skill than that.

So personally, I don't use the divider to group cast members unless it's different episodes. (But I'm not voting against contribution doing so either, because the rules are unclear)

Quoting reybr:

Quote:
I just wish Ken could change the wording in the rules and add a new kind of group feature to the cast list (as Skip previously has said he would. And yes I know Skip has been wrong before). As I see it, the intention of the divider isn't to group cast members together, but only for dividing separate cast lists (episodes/more than one film on a dvd). If the intention is to use it to group cast members together, it's very poorly designed, and I think more of Ken's skill than that.

So personally, I don't use the divider to group cast members unless it's different episodes. (But I'm not voting against contribution doing so either, because the rules are unclear)

That's where I'm at with the whole thing as well.  Personally, I view the use of dividers within a particular film for the purposes of grouping roles to be a perversion of what they were originally intended for.  I just vote neutral when I see them but I certainly won't be going out of my way to add them to any profiles.  It's not that big a deal in the grand scheme of things, I suppose.

Well, now Rick, as I see it the divider were new and added. Also, partiial Contributions are perfectly acceptable as has been noted many times. Perhaps the user has a lot of Conttributions pending and something might get lost, perhaps he discounts users who vote Contrary to the rules by making demands for data which is perfectly OK as a Partial Contribution, perhaps you should try PMing the user to make sure that he see exactly what you are referring to...but that would require engagement wouldn't it...hmmm what a conundrum. Perhaps you should try just try voting with the Rules and if you want something else, you can (1) always add it yourself (2)try talking to the user.

Skip

Or maybe you should use a PM to make sure your concern is not overlooked. Perhaps the users opinion is colored by the failure to communicate as well.

Skip

I don't happen to consider it an honest mistake, Rick. I consider it a PARTIAL Contribution, the existing data was INCORRECT. As I even made note of in my notes. But I'll fix it for you, I suggest you reconsider your opinions, you never have a problem with a valid issue, but you also know if it is an interpretation issue, then unless you can persuade me I won't budge as I don't happen to appreciate the tactics used by some with their to use their votes as blackmail to get what they want. Particularly when some of those people vote inconsistently, for example demanding a source of a user while not making the same demand of another user for similar data, or ignoring the Rules completely and voting Yes to images that do not match the Profile, or a variety of other issues that I see and these may or may not involve you. And I'll not discuss it publicly in any thing other than general terms.

You are free to make whatever choices you wish, Rick, you also have to understand that your actions also will be reflected in the validity with which another user might view your comments relative to their credibility...ZERO. Your choice, that is the way Ken designed the system, my choice in how I view those actions.

Skip

I don't know what profile this is, but I have to agree with Rick.  If you are removing existing data, that is correct, it no longer qualifies as a 'partial' contribution.

Unicus, the data was wrong to begin with, so yes, I view it as a partial.

Skip

Quoting Forget_the_Rest:

Quote:
If any of the roles you're removing are correct then it would be wrong to do so. If you're only removing incorrect data then I'd probably not vote against it.

What he said...though I got the impression that the roles were correct...is that the wrong impression?